Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Edgar v. Langston

March 28, 2007

JEREMY WANE EDGAR PLAINTIFF
v.
DAN LANGSTON, SHERIFF OF GREENE COUNTY DEFENDANT



ORDER

Plaintiff, who is currently a freeworld citizen, has commenced this pro se § 1983 action alleging that Defendant Sheriff Dan Langston violated his constitutional rights while he was being held in the Greene County Detention Center. See docket entries #2, #3, #6, and #10. The case is currently scheduled to proceed to a non-jury trial on May 22, 2007. See docket entry #31.

On March 23, 2007, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, a Brief in Support, and a Statement of Indisputable Material Facts. See docket entries #50, #51, and #52. The Court concludes that a Response from Plaintiff would be helpful to the resolution of that Motion.

At the summary judgment stage, a plaintiff cannot rest upon mere allegations and, instead, must meet proof with proof. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). This means that Plaintiff's Response must include his legal arguments, as well as affidavits,*fn1 prison records, or other evidence establishing that there is a genuine issue of material fact that must be resolved at a hearing or trial.

Furthermore, pursuant to Local Rule 56.1, Plaintiff must also separately file a Statement of Disputed Facts, which lists: (a) any disagreement he has with the specifically numbered factual assertions contained in Defendant's Statement of Indisputable Material Facts (docket entry #52); and (b) any other disputed facts that he believes must be resolved at a hearing or trial.*fn2 Finally, Plaintiff is advised that, if he intends to rely upon grievances or records that have been previously filed with the Court, he must specifically refer to those documents by docket number, page, date, and heading. The Court will not sift through the file to find support for Plaintiff's factual contentions. See Crossley v. Georgia-Pacific, Corp., 335 F.3d 1112, 1113-14 (8th Cir. 2004) (affirming the grant of summary judgment because a plaintiff failed to properly refer to specific pages of the record that supported his position).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff shall file, within thirty days of the entry of this Order, a Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (docket entry #50). That Response must comply with the Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, Local Rule 56.1, and the instructions set forth in this Order.

2. Plaintiff is advised that the failure to timely and properly comply with this Order could result in: (a) the dismissal of this action, without prejudice, pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2);*fn3 or (b) all of the facts set forth in Defendant's summary judgment ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.